Articles

Exclusive: Former NRA President Says We Are Fortunate That Men Like DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick Still “Revere the Constitution” By Illinois Review January 26th, 2023 In an exclusive with Illinois Review on Thursday, former National Rifle Association (NRA) president and current board member David Keene offered words of support for DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick, saying, “Sheriff Mendrick is to be commended as an elected official who takes the oath he took when he was elected seriously. The legislation was passed even though its authors and those who voted for it knew it would never pass constitutional muster. We are fortunate that there are still men and women like Sheriff Mendrick who revere the Constitution and the Supreme Court and refuse to cower before political bullies.” On January 10, 2023, Illinois became one of several states in the nation to ban assault weapons after Gov. JB Pritzker, D held a signing ceremony at the State Capitol in Springfield. After the ceremony, Prtizker spoke to the press, where he had a stern warning for conservative gun owners across the state: there will be consequences for not following the law. Days later, several law enforcement agencies said they would not enforce the gun ban, prompting Gov. Pritzker to issue another stern warning: police will be fired for not enforcing the new law. Since then, more than 80 sheriffs have said that they will not enforce the new assault weapons ban, including Mendrick, who issued a statement on January 13th, saying, “I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law official for DuPage County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.” And as expected, the response from the Democrats was swift and immediate with many calling on Mendrick to retract his statement or resign. DuPage County Chair Deb Conroy, a Democrat, has said that she plans to propose a resolution in February to censure Mendrick for what she calls, “engaging in inflammatory political rhetoric.” On Tuesday, more than 200 conservative, law-abiding, pro 2nd Amendment Republicans filled the DuPage County board meeting, forcing the board to create an overflow room because of the record attendance in support of Mendrick. On January 18th, the Illinois State Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit challenging the assault weapons ban, following up on their promise on the day that Prizker signed the legislation into law, saying, “Challenge accepted. The Illinois State Rifle Association will see the State of Illinois in court.” On Thursday, ISRA Executive Director Richard A. Pearson offered this statement exclusive to Illinois Review in support of Mendrick, “The ISRA is proud to support Sheriff Mendrick for refusing to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law passed by antigun zealots in the Illinois General Assembly. We support all sheriffs who stand against this terrible law.” Sheriff Mendrick’s position that HR 5471 is unconstitutional is supported by a temporary restraining order entered last Friday by Effingham County Judge Joshua Morrison in a lawsuit brought by former Illinois Attorney General candidate Tom DeVore challenging the assault weapons ban.

Ex-NRA chief looks beyond Trump in 2024 U.S. presidential race David Keene says former president's biggest problem is he is 'all about the past' Former NRA chief David Keene says the political rise of Donald Trump is a symptom of the American public feeling alienated from Washington. MASAHIRO OKOSHI, Nikkei Washington bureau chief July 10, 2023 21:42 JST WASHINGTON -- In the increasingly crowded race for the Republican nomination for U.S. president next year, the former chief of the National Rifle Association seems to be focusing on alternative candidates to former President Donald Trump. The influential gun lobby endorsed Trump during his presidential run in 2016. But David Keene, the association's president from 2011 to 2013, told Nikkei that the decision should not be made "at this stage." "Donald Trump is not about the future. He's all about the past," Keene said. He said he would instead vote for other candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis if he thinks they could win the White House. Edited excerpts from the interview follow. Q: Many Republicans seemed disappointed in Trump after last year's midterm election. But his supporters seemed to have regained momentum, especially after he was indicted in March over an alleged hush money payment to an adult film star. A: A lot of Trump supporters have been of the opinion, and not incorrectly, that from the day he was elected, or even before that, in 2016, that there has been a concerted effort to destroy him. They are very defensive, and that binds them to him, because a lot of the attacks have not been on Trump -- they've been on them. What you had was a growing sense in the public of an alienation from Washington. This was not caused by Trump. Trump's a symptom of it. [Now] the White House decides -- and they've made this fairly clear in a number of ways -- that there's one way that they can reelect Joe Biden. And that's to get him to run against Donald Trump, because they can run a campaign in which you're not arguing that Biden is better; you're arguing that Trump is worse. That's a contest they think they would win. Can DeSantis or somebody else sell themselves as the alternative to Trump? That's a tough one, because you can't join in to demonize the Trump base like the Democrats have. You can't start attacking those voters for "being so dumb they were for Trump," because they'll say, "Well, we may be dumb but we have a vote." Q: At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference in March, Trump in a speech said, "I am your retribution." A: Donald Trump is not about the future. He's all about the past. It's all about getting even, it's all about, "They cheated me." I always say if you think they're grateful for what you did, ask Winston Churchill after World War II. "Nice job, Winnie," you know? Now you're gone, because they want to know not what you did yesterday -- they want to know what you're going do tomorrow. Donald Trump doesn't go there. He just goes back. When you take everything else away, that's his biggest problem. Q:  Given the importance of winning the presidential general election in 2024, it seems like the Republicans should choose another candidate in the party primaries who has a better chance of winning against President Biden. A: Historically, primaries are not about who can win the general election. Primaries are about, "Who do I agree with? Who do I like? Who am I attracted to?" While Donald Trump may be a weak candidate, so is Joe Biden, and so they're saying, "We could have it both ways. We could get the guy we like, and he can win, no matter what anybody says." Q: Who would you vote for in 2024? A: The people that I like that are never going to be president are [former Vice President] Mike Pence and [former Arkansas Gov.] Asa Hutchinson. They're very decent people. I agree with almost everything that they say. I would go with one of these others, including DeSantis -- if I think he can win. And he's the "best bet" at this point, if he can take off. I'd go with some of the others as well. I think it comes down to whether Ron DeSantis can take off while Trump is weakening. If DeSantis doesn't take off and Trump collapses, that's a whole different story. Then somebody will emerge, because they'll have some space in which they can grow. Q: Do you think the NRA should endorse Trump again? A: Not at this stage. We only rarely get involved in primaries because at this stage, in the Republican Party, usually all of the candidates are Second Amendment supporters. So we don't pick among them on that. The 2016 race, where we went all-in for Trump, was -- and we were crucial in that race -- unique. There were two reasons. One, nobody was spending any money for Trump in the summer of 2016. Secondly, about 30% of our members -- and the electoral strength of the NRA -- is throughout the Midwest. And the base of the NRA is not just conservative Republicans; it's working-class Democrats. Here was a candidate who was appealing to them, who didn't really understand the issues that well but said, "I'm for it." And nobody was doing anything. So we jumped in and had disproportionate influence than we would usually have. Q: The U.S. has seen numerous mass shootings in recent years. What are your thoughts on the current situation? A: The issue is so polarized that there's no rational discussion. The NRA position has always been, "We don't need more gun laws; we need to enforce the laws that we have." Today we're enforcing fewer of those laws. The problem now is not the guns; the problem is the people. And we've had a breakdown in this country. When I was a kid in Wisconsin, I used to take my shotgun to school [and] put it in the locker. Then on the way home, we'd go shoot pigeons. Nobody ever shot up the school. There is something wrong. But you're not going to solve it by taking somebody's gun away from him.

By David A. Keene - May 2nd 2023 The old saying ‘if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, you will begin to see every problem as a nail' is particularly true in the political world. Pollsters continually advise candidates that they need more polls; media gurus argue more radio and television ads; direct mail consultants claim the key to victory is their message in every voter's mailbox. Social media experts dismiss all of the above as antiquated and inefficient. However, few political or real-world problems are susceptible to one-size-fits-all solutions. The tendency to reach for the hammer is nowhere more apparent than in the progressive political approach to crime. Progressives are determined to define crime as a nail and their hammer is “gun control.” They have managed to persuade themselves and each other that if there were no firearms in private hands there would be no crime. If only it were so simple. Current firearms restrictions recognize that part of the problem may be susceptible to this hammer. Federal policy thus already restricts convicted felons, the potentially dangerously mentally ill and others deemed to be a threat to others, from buying or possessing firearms. While one can argue about whether these restrictions are too broad or narrow, they make logical sense. Armed robbers, gangbangers and the potentially violently mentally ill are not the sorts of people who should be running around with guns. That nail has been hammered. Still, they want to keep hammering. Preventing those who have worked their way onto what is known as the “Prohibited List” from acquiring firearms is one thing, but taking the hammer to the rights of law-abiding citizens guaranteed by the constitution is quite another. But that is what they want to do. Any excuse to find ways to restrict firearms ownership seems sensible. A few years ago, I attended a conference at which former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's acolytes suggested that anyone arrested for driving while intoxicated should lose their firearms rights for ten years. This, they insisted loudly, would reduce mass shootings. When I asked if there was any empirical evidence that mass shooters are likely to have had a drunk driving arrest on their record or that those likely to shoot up a school or shopping mall tend to come from the ranks of such drivers, they dismissed the questions as beside the point. They sincerely believed they had found another nail that needed hammering. Gun control advocates ignore the possibility that the growing violence with which we are living may stem from deeper causes than the availability of firearms. In an earlier day, high school students in rural communities often brought their rifles and shotguns to school, stored the gun in their lockers and went hunting after school. In the sixties, airlines allowed passengers to store their long guns in the overhead luggage bin while traveling. None of those students shot up their school and those passengers never hijacked planes or killed passengers. It was a different world. Of course, in those days one could ride the New York subway without risking being pushed onto the tracks by a stranger or watch a parade with no fear that someone would deliberately drive a car or truck into the crowd. And there were no “flash mobs” terrorizing retail outlets and customers, and policemen did not just look on as people they are supposed to protect were beaten. So why is today's world so different and so violent? Progressives will tell you “guns,” because gun control is the hammer they have, and they want to use it to “solve” a societal problem far more complicated than they are willing to admit.. They have convinced themselves that all problems from crime to climate change can be solved with their hammers, no further investigation needed. This myopia was on full display as Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steven Dettelbach testified before the House Judiciary Committee on April 26th. Texas Republican Chip Roy asked Dettelbach how many of the 155 “mass” shooters Dettelbach was discussing were on “medication” at the time of the shootings, how many were from single parent families, and how many were heavily into social media. Dettelbach had no idea. More than a few experts have suggested that some illicit and a wide range of new prescribed medications have severe psychotic side effects that could make those using them more prone to aggression and violence. The question of whether those who take up guns against their neighbors, co-workers or fellow students are on such drugs is both relevant and important. But not to Dettelbach. In a sense, Dettelbach was correct when he responded that while Mr. Roy's questions might be worth looking into, they are not questions that ATF has a responsibility to address or to investigate. Sadly, Mr. Dettelbach has only one tool in his toolbox and it's the gun control hammer that he believes or at least hopes is the right one. Many experts believe the problem is not a nail. Taking criminals off the street and enforcing existing firearms laws work, but simply devoting time, energy and taxpayer money to pound on things that aren't nails clouds the search for real world solutions to real problems Mr. Dettelbach and his bosses in the White House need to come to the realization that they need more than a hammer in their toolboxes. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.